I would like to start a new thread discussing the topic of
1. whether a person needs to have own and touch a certain cue in order to judge it in terms of workmanship.
2. Also, if a person has owned a cue by a certain cue maker, does that make his comment on this cuemaker's workmanship automatically more credible than someone who doesn't?
With regard to 1. I think in order to judge a cue's playability, yes, one would have to tried the cue; but to judge workmanship, especially on the lack of such, looking at pictures could be sufficient in the eyes of those who know what to look for.
For example, if I see a picture of a cue with very uneven splice, I don't see why I would not be qualified to comment that the cue maker's splicing technique is not perfect. It is not necessary for me to have the cue right in front of me to realize that.
If I look at the picture of a cue and the ferrule is not even symmetically fitted, I dont see why I am not qualified to comment on the poor ferrule job. i simply do not need to have the cue in my hands to see that it is a poor job.
With regard to 2. I would say it depends on the knowledge and experience of the owner of the cue.
Some people have had very little knowledge or experience with cues. They could be holding a cue with major flaws and not know it. I have seen people holding cues with poor joint/finish/taper/tip job that have no idea they were poorly done.
Some first time owner of cues simply do not know what to look for. As they gathered more info and experience, they opinion on their cues change. They start to know what they want, and would become more decerning. A lot of them will move up and order more expensive cue and sell the cue they once thought was perfect.
Therefore, if a person does not have the experience and knowledge, even when he has the cue in his hand, he still may not be able to make a fair accessment on the workmanship of the cue. His opinion should not carry more weight than that from someone more experienced and knowledgable who do not have the cue physically but have access to many pictures of the cue.
In conclusion, I would say it is not necessarily true that a person needs to have the cue in his procession or have even seen the cue live to make a qualified comment--it depends more on how much experience and knowledge the person has rather than if he owns the cue; comment from someone who does not own the cue is not necessarily less creditable than from someone who owns it.
Do you agree? Please discuss.
1. whether a person needs to have own and touch a certain cue in order to judge it in terms of workmanship.
2. Also, if a person has owned a cue by a certain cue maker, does that make his comment on this cuemaker's workmanship automatically more credible than someone who doesn't?
With regard to 1. I think in order to judge a cue's playability, yes, one would have to tried the cue; but to judge workmanship, especially on the lack of such, looking at pictures could be sufficient in the eyes of those who know what to look for.
For example, if I see a picture of a cue with very uneven splice, I don't see why I would not be qualified to comment that the cue maker's splicing technique is not perfect. It is not necessary for me to have the cue right in front of me to realize that.
If I look at the picture of a cue and the ferrule is not even symmetically fitted, I dont see why I am not qualified to comment on the poor ferrule job. i simply do not need to have the cue in my hands to see that it is a poor job.
With regard to 2. I would say it depends on the knowledge and experience of the owner of the cue.
Some people have had very little knowledge or experience with cues. They could be holding a cue with major flaws and not know it. I have seen people holding cues with poor joint/finish/taper/tip job that have no idea they were poorly done.
Some first time owner of cues simply do not know what to look for. As they gathered more info and experience, they opinion on their cues change. They start to know what they want, and would become more decerning. A lot of them will move up and order more expensive cue and sell the cue they once thought was perfect.
Therefore, if a person does not have the experience and knowledge, even when he has the cue in his hand, he still may not be able to make a fair accessment on the workmanship of the cue. His opinion should not carry more weight than that from someone more experienced and knowledgable who do not have the cue physically but have access to many pictures of the cue.
In conclusion, I would say it is not necessarily true that a person needs to have the cue in his procession or have even seen the cue live to make a qualified comment--it depends more on how much experience and knowledge the person has rather than if he owns the cue; comment from someone who does not own the cue is not necessarily less creditable than from someone who owns it.
Do you agree? Please discuss.
Comment